Re: [Teas] ACTN update

"Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <> Thu, 17 November 2016 12:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B013412973E for <>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 04:10:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1XQncoOL8h8c for <>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 04:10:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08C51129415 for <>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 04:10:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id C1A0DE8A95F; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:10:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( []) by (GMO-o) with ESMTP id uAHCAAt8000706 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:10:12 GMT
Received: from ( []) by (GMO) with ESMTP id uAHCA9uG001604 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:10:09 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:10:09 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <>
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <>, "TEAS WG (" <>
Thread-Topic: ACTN update
Thread-Index: AdJAeoeb3oMDwnZ0TveBS2SD5cPsIAASyoHg
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:10:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D48B84C33FR712WXCHMBA15z_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] ACTN update
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:10:18 -0000

Hi all,

I think ongoing discussions in OPSAWG and L2SM show that a "service orchestrator" implementing the L3SM model (or e.g. the L2SM model) may not necessarily directly talk to a domain controller. There can be much more complex architectures, e.g., if the service provider and network operator are not the same organization.

Also, the L3SM is a customer-facing model and the system may deal with customer "SLAs". Therefore, I am not sure if the term "TE" is really useful at the level of the L3SM model. Also, I believe the SLAs for a customer may not necessarily directly relate to TE. So, I find the notion "L3SM + TE" quite confusing.

In summary, I don't think that this slide deck clarifies the role of ACTN in a real service provisioning architecture, e.g., for IP services.

And since there is already terminology discussion in OPSAWG and L2SM/L3SM, I find it not useful to add further ACTN-specific terms. This just increases the confusion that already exists.

Maybe TEAS should back of a bit and work with the other WGs on terminology alignment?



From: Teas [] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 3:32 AM
To: TEAS WG ( <>
Subject: [Teas] ACTN update

Dear WG and ACTNers,

Please find attached some slides trying to clarify terminology, roles and functionalities in ACTN (in line with the discussion we had at the mic during the TEAS session). It provides an architectural explanation and a possible workflow description trying to see if it fits with the architecture.

My proposal is to:

1.       Add a section in the framework document to explain the relationship and the split of roles between PNC, MDSC and existing components like orchestrator and domain controller.

2.       Add a section to the "Applicability of YANG models for ACTN" to explain how this impacts the definition of the MPI and what is missing (i.e. TE-Service model). This will have impacts also on the PCEP applicability.

3.    Write a new document defining service mapping model that provides mappings across LxSM and TE-service model and that can be extend to support different service models (L3VPN/L2VPN/L1VPN, VTS, Transport Connectivity service, etc). Dhruv, Young and I are already working on this.

Opinions? Thoughts?